On 2006-12-28 12:43, tgpedersen wrote:
>> Or, better still, directly from athematic aorists, as subjunctives
>> with the extension *-e- (or *-h1e-?) and vr.ddhi in the root (which
>> all subjunctives have, and which makes them barytone, since the full
>> root vowel attracts the accent).
>>
>
> Why better?
>
> 1) You can't derive tudati verbs that way.
Who says that their origin must be the same? There are resons to believe
otherwise. For example, there are some (post-?)PIE aorists like
*wid-é/ó- and *h1ludH-é/ó-, but never a single example of a *Cé(R)C-e/o-
aorist anywhere. This suggests that we are dealing with two different
stem formations, one of them indifferent to aspectual distinctions, the
other obligatorily classified as present. The *wid-é-/*tud-é- type may
have developed via the reanalysis of the middle voice -- the details
have been discussed here more than once.
> 2) What would be the idea of deriving a present indicative from an
> aorist subjunctive?
If the subjunctive of punctual verbs with primary endings had the
meaning of the close future, e.g. *gWém-e-ti 'he's going to take a
step', it's reinterpretation as a progressive ('he's moving') was easy.
An imminent action can be viewed as already in progress, cf. the use of
the present continuous tense with future significance in English.
Piotr